Sunday, February 26, 2012

The NY Times had a piece praising the way Bell Labs
innovated. I beg to differ. First I was at Bell Labs from 1964 thru 1972, at
various times and at multiple locations. I was there from undergrad days until
just after my PhD from MIT. From 1986 through 1989 I was also Head of R&D
for what was then NYNEX and is now Verizon. Thus I speak from firsthand
experience, more than anything the author of the piece can do.

The author states:

Why study Bell Labs? It offers a number of lessons about how our
country’s technology companies — and our country’s longstanding
innovative edge — actually came about. Yet Bell Labs also presents a
more encompassing and ambitious approach to innovation than what
prevails today. Its staff worked on the incremental improvements
necessary for a complex national communications network while
simultaneously thinking far ahead, toward the most revolutionary
inventions imaginable.

I could not disagree more. In my opinion based upon a decade of direct presence and exposure I contend that Bell Labs is the antithesis of how research and technology development in a corporate world should be done! In fact if one follows that model one will fall into a world which we no longer live in. It is a world devoid of creative destruction, a world devoid of any truly competitive innovation, a world where we would have a very small fraction of what we have today.

The author also states:

He personally helped design a building in Murray Hill, N.J., opened in
1941, where everyone would interact with one another. Some of the
hallways in the building were designed to be so long that to look down
their length was to see the end disappear at a vanishing point.
Traveling the hall’s length without encountering a number of
acquaintances, problems, diversions and ideas was almost impossible. A
physicist on his way to lunch in the cafeteria was like a magnet rolling
past iron filings.

Now I spent time at Murray Hill, Whippany, Holmdel, and Indian Hill, I also was at the West Street office on my first days. In reality it was all too often a 9-5 location with Chess Clubs, model airplane clubs, amateur radio clubs, bridge clubs, which occupied many hours in excess of lunch. In my ten years of exposure I failed to see much of what the author contends. My conclusion is a generality, but one based upon a broad exposure.

Now to the facts. Bell Labs was set up to support Western
Electric, the manufacturing arm of AT&T. Western was the sole supplier to
the Bell Operating companies, BOCs. ATT was a Government sponsored
monopoly exempt under the law from antitrust restraints along with baseball.
Bell Labs was thus a way to develop technology for the operating companies and
also to create patent rights to prevent any other entrant into the business. It
was a Government sanctioned monopoly which effectively insured telecommunications related technology development was
suppressed everywhere except in Bell. Somehow the author seems to miss that
point.

Now a second fact, the BOCs and ATT had a different
profit making rule. Unlike the normal market where the price is set in an open free market place by supply and demand, and profit was revenue less expenses, the Bell equation was materially different. They, namely the BOCs and ATT, set rates, actually the Government claimed to do so
but in reality, in my opinion, ATT told the Government what to do, and there were times of some disagreement, but eventually in my opinion ATT got what they wanted.

The rates and economics of the business from my perspective generally worked as
follows:

Profit then was the rate of return on capital, usually
somewhere between 12-18%.

Costs had nothing to do with profit, and profit was
maximized by designing the least efficient means of production, namely the more
capital per customer the more profit.

There was no incentive to reduce costs or improve
technology.

It was a monopoly.

Thus Bell Labs was motivated to get as big as possible and
to be as inefficient as possible. However the PR issues were at the fore, so to
keep the Government at arms-length they publicized what they did in research
and did a great deal of Government development work. For example they did work
on undersea sub detection and the Nike anti-missile program.

The author of the article praises all of the Labs
development. Let me make a few corrections:

1. Internet: According to Bob Kahn, as I recall having discussed with him, when he was head of IPTO
at ARPA he went to Bell Labs to seek their help to deploy packet switching by utilizing some of their modem designs and networks.
Bell Labs management, there were a great number at the meeting, which was
all too common, informed him that they would take an exclusive contract from ARPA and design and
build what Bell thought was right and that Kahn could watch the results.
Fortunately Kahn rejected the exclusive deal and in his brilliant way created
the core group who “invented” the Internet, despite Bell Labs! I was fortunate enough to play a small part in that effort when I was at Comsat, getting the first satellite connections operating.

2. Satellites: John Pierce boldly published a design for
dozens of satellites as necessary to perform as a communications net of limited
capacity. He stated that it was technically impossible to have a synchronous
satellite. Believing Pierce Comsat was funded assuming dozens of satellites and
launches. Hughes soon thereafter launched the first synchronous orbit satellite
and only 3 were need for all the world! Pierce was proven wrong as was Bell
Labs. Perhaps the Pierce design was consistent with the massive capex
overspending as was pandemic at Bell. Harold Rosen at Hughes was the driving
force of this new world and he rather than Pierce should have the recognition. Again
the author seems to have missed this point. Bell launched Telstar, and then just withdrew as competition arose.

3. Digital Switches: Bell Labs refused to move to digital
switches, they had developed the No 1 ESS, a project I had worked on, and wanted to allow a "normal progression" as I recall. They thus stalled. The Chairman of ATT at the time, as I was told, was frustrated and he went to
Bell Northern Research, the Bell Canada arm, which AT&T at the time owned, and
asked them to build a digital switch. That switch became the basis for Northern
Telecom, one of the most advanced switches for a few decades.

4. Modems: In the early 1980s, with the advent of PCs,
companies such as Telenet and Tymnet grew and modems were need. Bell refused
to do this because it would reduce costs. Instead a small company called Hayes
built one of the first digital modems to work on these separate networks. It
allowed what became the Internet to grow.

5. IP Networks: The IP based networks came from small
companies such as Cisco, and wireless came first from Motorola and then new
entrants such as Qualcomm. Telecom as we know it today grew despite of Bell
Labs not due to it.

The author, in my opinion, is totally blind to where true progress
was made, it was made with the entrepreneur, not the massive corporate research
center. I would argue that Bell Labs was a major drag on inventive elements in
telecom. It was Codex and modems, Cisco and routers, and many other entrepreneurial
companies which lead the way. Entrepreneurial companies work in a Darwinian
fashion, success is rewarded and failure falls away. Bell Labs, for many
generations, in my opinion, and based upon my experience, actually thwarted
development. Perhaps that story may someday be told, not the one sided tale
contrived, in my opinion, from some PR machine.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

In Science in 1991 Vogelstein et al published one of their many results on colon cancer and its related genes and a Science writer presented the above picture in a summary article. The above paradigm has become common place amongst a wide class of cancers. Namely we see a set of well defined genetic changes that lead to intermediate steps in a cell and eventually to a cancer.

In this weeks NEJM the authors have concluded that colonoscopies with the removal of adenomas actually improves survival.

The authors state:

We previously found that polypectomy reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer in the NPS cohort.The present study suggests that adenoma removal significantly reduced
the risk of death from colorectal cancer, as compared with that in the
general population, and in the first 10 years after polypectomy, reduced
the risk to a level similar to that in an internal concurrent control
group of patients with no adenomas.

Our comparison of observed
deaths in the adenoma cohort with expected deaths in the general
population, based on SEER data that were specific for age, sex, race,
and calendar year, may have underestimated the reduction in mortality
that may be achieved with colonoscopic polypectomy in screening
populations. Because all the patients in the adenoma cohort had
adenomas, including 57.3% with advanced adenomas, they represented a
higher-risk group than the general population

Now this is no surprise, namely that survival is better. However what is a surprise is that there should be any deaths at all for those being closely watched with polyp removal. Namely if colon cancer, adenoma type, are following the Vogelstein paradigm, then careful colonoscopies would in almost all cases catch and remove a polyp before going to a final stage, especially one of metastatic potential. Thus one should have assumed that zero mortality was expected and anything but would and should be questioned.

The authors state:

This prospective study has some limitations. First, a small number of
trained endoscopists performed the colonoscopies according to a study
protocol that required examination to the cecum, adequate preparation,
careful inspection of the colon, and removal of all identified polyps,
features that are consistent with reports of high-quality performance.
Consequently, the NPS observations may not be generalizable to present
community practice, for which reported incidence rates of colorectal
cancer after polypectomy are higher than those reported in the NPS

Indeed there are concerns, for why were there any mortalities if the colonoscopies were done as we would expect.

You see, if we believe Vogelstein, and after 21 years the belief is fact, that when we remove an adenoma we are removing the pre-malignant cells, that is those cells which will eventually become the cancer stem cell, and their progeny, then we remove any future malignancy from that source. Thus what then is the source for the cancer which consumes the patient.

Perhaps looking at the data may provide some evidence but then again perhaps not. The paper qua report does not offer that detail. Thus one wonders if the Vogelstein model is in error or that there may be some secondary but highly significant issues in the patient pool.

One should have concluded total removal of any colon cancer, not a 50% reduction in death from that cause. This should in my opinion be the conclusion of this report, instead the press seems to laud the reduction in death rate by 50%, not the fact that it really should be 100%! Was the adenoma the cause, where else did the cell come from, had it metastasized already, where was the resulting stem cell hiding, is the Vogelstein model wrong, does this effect happen elsewhere, such as in melanoma in situ? What of the presence and then absence of HGPIN, was that a removal of a CSC?

This result raises many questions from the aspect of a systems model for cancer. Unfortunately few seem to be considering them. Hopefully it will instigate a few.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The OECD issued a report on obesity and their projections are as we had predicted, the US is just plain fat!

They state:

Governments can help people change their lifestyle by making new healthy options available or by making existing ones more accessible and affordable. Alternatively, they can use persuasion, education and information to make healthy options more attractive. This gentle approach is more expensive, hard to deliver and hard to monitor. A tougher approach, through regulation and fiscal measures, is moretransparent but it hits all consumers indiscriminately, so can have high political and welfare costs. It may also be difficult to organise and enforce and have regressive effects.

There is motivation and there is punishment. There also is the Department of Agriculture which is the dominant culprit in the US, just look at school meals, that is one of the problems. In the old days, you brought lunch or better went home for lunch. Now there is no home to go to and the law demands you consume the junk the DoA serves up. Recall that the DoA budget is doubled under the current Administration's Budget proposal, instead it should be eliminated!

They continue:

Denmark introduced a tax on foods containing more than 2.3% saturated fats (meat, cheese, butter,edible oils, margarine, spreads, snacks, etc.) in 2011. Consumers pay 16 kroner (EUR 2.15) per kilogram of saturated fat on domestic and imported food, which is equivalent to up to 30% more for a pack of butter, 8% more for a bag of chips, and 7% more for a litre of olive oil. Tax revenues are expected to be over EUR 200 million per year, and saturated fat consumption is expected to decrease by 4%. Denmark had also increased its excise taxes on chocolate, ice cream, sugary drinks and confectionery by 25% in 2010. Also in 2011, Hungary introduced a tax on selected manufactured foods with high sugar, salt or caffeine content. Carbonated sugary drinks are among the products targeted by the new measures. The tax does not concern basic food stuffs and only affects products that have healthier alternatives. The Hungarian government is reportedly expecting to raise in excess of EUR 70 million per year from the tax. 2011 was also the year that Finland introduced a tax on confectionery products, while biscuits, buns and pastries remained exempt. The tax, originally intended to be set at almost one euro per kilogram of product, was subsequently dropped to EUR 0.75 per kilogram. At the same time, the existing excise tax on soft drinks was raised from 4.5 cents to 7.5 cents per litre.

These are actions which have merit. But as I have noted it is the very Government which decries this that at the same time not only supports it but denies options, just look at the recent case of the child who brought lunch from home having to eat fried chicken nuggets! The problem is not obesity it is the Government.

Monday, February 20, 2012

The FDA has recently approved a PCA3 test assay which is
owned by a Canadian company, Gen-Probe. This opens up a whole new avenue for
examining PCa amongst men. I examine some of the issue here at a fairly high
level.

There has been a great deal of discussion regarding PSA and
its lack of sufficient specificity and sensitivity to PCa and there is some
evidence that PCA3 will improve the situation. This is yet to be determined in
extensive clinical trials. One of the problems with PSA is that it is
reflective of total prostate volume and it also naturally increases with age.
Thus a male of say 70 years of age and with a 70 cc prostate may easily have a
PSA of 2.5 just based upon the size and age factors.

Likewise if the male were
40 and had a 35 cc prostate then this may be indicative of PCa. In a recent
paper by McGarty, we detailed the issue
of PSA sampling and the percent change, ie velocity, as a means to assess the
nature of the underlying cause. Namely the more prostate basal cells and
luminal cells the higher the PSA. As we shall see there is better correlation
with PCA3 but the underlying molecular and cellular dynamics do not appear as
well defined at this time, namely we have a marker with no clear underlying
genomics cause.

The PCA3 measurement is define as follows:

PCA3 Score = 1000 [mRNA PCA3]/[mRNA PSA]

where [mRNA PCA3] is the concentration of mRNA of PCA3 and
the same for the denominator. The range is such that a PCA3 score of less than
5 gives a very low likelihood of PCa and >35 gives a very high probability.
The issue here often is repeat biopsy. The suggestion then is that one use PCA3
as a test for repeat biopsy indication (see Gen-Probe PCA3 documentation).
Details on ROC for PCA3 are not broadly available and repeatable at this time.

PCA3 was first discussed in 1999 in a paper by Bussemakers
et al, at which time it was called DD3. In their abstract the authors stated at
the time:

The DD3 gene was mapped to chromosome
9q21–22, and no homology of DD3 to any gene present in the computer databases
was found. Our data indicate that DD3 is
one of the most prostate cancer-specific genes yet described, and this makes DD3
a promising marker for the early diagnosis of prostate cancer and provides a
powerful tool for the development of new treatment strategies for prostate
cancer patients.

It further turns out that PCA3 is a noncoding mRNA and thus
there is no protein resultant. This was speculated by Bussemakers et al when
they published their work in 1999. The key question seems to be why does PCA3
increase when there is a PCa and what is the details of the mechanism.
Furthermore where does PCA3 fit within the context of the many pathways we know
exist in PCa development.

As Cao an Yao report:

The DD3PCA3 encoding
gene is located on chromosome 9 (9q2122). The gene includes four exons and
three introns. In PCa, the most frequent mutation is the selective splicing of
the second exon. At present, there is a vast body of ongoing studies on PCA3.
Hopefully they can further confirm the role of PCA3 in the occurrence and the
development of PCa and provide new treatment targets for patients with PCa.
Hesselssuggested that using quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain
reaction (RTPCR) for the detection of urine DD3PCA3 was a valuable molecular
detection method in patients with PCa and could help reduce unnecessary
biopsies.

In a multicenter study designed to examine the diagnostic capacity of
urine PCA3 detection, the AUC of urine PCA3 detection was 0.66, while the AUC
of serum PCA3 detection was merely 0.57. The sensitivity and specificity of
PCA3 detection were 65% and 66% , respectively .
Recently, researchers have suggested that serum PSA level plus PCA3 detection
was the most promising diagnostic method for PCa. All these studies show that
PCA3 is probably an important urine marker for PCa. It also provides a new clue
for developing noninvasive detection methods for PCa. Hence, PCA3 may have
considerable significance in multiple tumor marker screening of patients for
PCa in the future.

Thus one of the questions is what is PCA3 and why does it
reflect PCa presence. We know that we are measuring mRNA concentrations, and we
know that in measuring them we have experimental evidence that PSA reflects
total cell concentration. But what of PCA3, what does that reflect.

In a recent paper by Clarke et al the authors attempt to
clarify what the role of PCA3 is.

In order to understand
further the importance of the PCA3 gene
in PCa we undertook a more detailed investigation of this gene and its
chromosomal locus. This investigation points to a considerably more complex
transcriptional unit for PCA3 than
originally reported including additional novel exons. We describe a number of
novel PCA3 splice variants with more specific expression
in PCa tissues and metastases. We also demonstrate that PCA3 is embedded in the intron of a
second gene, BMCC1, a gene implicated
in controlling oncogenic transformation and that both genes showed increased
expression in PCa and metastases. The absence of a TATA box element within a
human gene promoter has been associated with promiscuous transcriptional initiation.
The PCA3 gene does not contain an upstream
TATA sequence and it was therefore of interest to determine whether any additional
transcription initiation sites existed for PCA3

Perhaps this relationship to BMCC1 may lead to some insight.
They continue:

BMCC1
is upregulated in PCa and androgen inducible Since PCA3 is upregulated in PCa
and since we showed here that this gene is embedded in a second gene BMCC1,
implicated in cellular proliferation, we determined whether BMCC1 was also differentially
regulated in PCa. We used a set of RT-PCR primers that span that region of the BMCC1
gene (exons 6 and 7), specific for the full-length BMCC1-1 transcript.
Expression of BMCC1-1 was evident in normal prostate and BPH specimens and was upregulated
in PCa and metastases. This was confirmed using
primers corresponding to the BCH C-terminal region of BMCC1 and for BMCC1-2.

Indeed amplification of this isoform gave better discrimination between PCa and
BPH. Extending these experiments to PCa and other cell
lines revealed that both genes were highly expressed, specifically in the PCa
cell line LNCaP. In addition BMCC1-1 was detected in a second PCa cell line
DU145 but at lower levels. PCA3 is also expressed in DU145 but required further
rounds of amplification for detection. The shorter BMCC1 isoforms (BMCC1-3 and/or
BMCC1-4) were also detected (using primers specific for the BCH region) in an
EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid cell line (JHP), but the longer BMCC1-1 isoform was
not detected. Previous data have shown that the level of PCA3 can be induced in
LNCaP cells after treatment with dihydrotestosterone, which mimics the effects
of binding of the androgen receptor (DHT). We determined whether BMCC1- 1 was
also responsive to hormonal induction. The results …. demonstrate that both PCA3
and BMCC1 are maximally induced in the LNCaP cell line at a concentration of
0.5 mM DHT.

Thus there seems to be some means of related induction but
again no definitive relationship to well defined pathways.

The following is the PCA3 and PSA ROC for comparison. Note
the following (see de la
Taille):

The area under the
curve of the receiver operating characteristics (AUC ROC) of the PCA3 Score was
compared with that of serum total PSA, PSAD and % free PSA. The diagnostic
accuracy of the PCA3 Score was statistically significantly better than that of
serum total PSA, PSAD and % free PSA. The greatest diagnostic accuracy of the
PCA3 Score was obtained at a cut-off of 35: specificity 76% and sensitivity 64%
. At a sensitivity of 80%, the PCA3 Score specificity of 58% was higher than the
44% for PSAD and 27% for serum total PSA and % free PSA.

The following from de la Taille is the comparative ROC. It appears that from the
limited data available that the ROC curve is substantially better with PCA3
than PSA alone.

The key questions remaining in my mind are:

1. What pathway elements does PCA3 reflect. What genetically
is happening and what is the underlying system model. This is always an issue.
As with primary medicine we have underlying physiology, here we must have some
underlying genomics.

2. What are the cellular mechanism which control PCA3. Again
this is a pathways issue.

3. How sustainable is PCA3 ROC for this assay. Many tests
have been done and FDA approval is merely acceptance of some limited tests.

4. How does one relate PSA and PCA3. Note that the PCA3
measure does reflect PSA concentration, so we have not abandoned PSA.

5. Why do we normalize PCA3 on PSA? If PSA has such a
variability are we normalizing on something which is inherently unpredictable?

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Iran has terminated oil sales to England and France. This is of course all over the European Press and the Guardian states:

Iran announced on Sunday that it had stopped selling crude oil
to British and French companies, in a move that may put further
pressure on the price of oil amid heightening political tensions.

The
price of Brent crude – the benchmark for oil – had been rising last
week because of tensions with Tehran, which had warned it might cut oil supplies to the Netherlands, Greece, France, Portugal, Spain and Italy in retaliation for Europe's latest sanctions. On
Sunday, a spokesman was quoted on the Iranian oil ministry's website as
saying: "Exporting crude to British and French companies has been
stopped … we will sell our oil to new customers. We have our own
customers … The replacements for these companies have been considered by
Iran."

Oil ministry spokesman Alireza Nikzad-Rahbar said as the oil minister had earlier announced about the probability of halting oil exports to some European Union (EU) countries, "the Oil Ministry has stopped oil sales to British and French companies." The Islamic Republic has no problem in selling its crude oil to its customers, Nikzad-Rahbar said. "We have our own oil customers and the replacements for these (British and French) companies have already been considered and we will sell the crude oil to new customers instead of the British and French companies." The spokesman's remarks, which did not specify the time of the sales' cut to the British and French companies, were posted on the website of Energy and Oil Information Network affiliated to the Iranian Oil Ministry.

The irony is that the NY Times has yet to reference the event.

This will be a major event this week as oil prices are likely to explode. Needless to say it will further dampen Europe in the midst of the Greek mess and then filter to the US. Unfortunately no one seems to be focusing on this here.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

One of the things a young medical school student often experiences as they study new and oftentimes dire diseases is that they too soon sense the symptoms of some of them. Dengue Fever is often a common complaint in Boston, despite the fact that there never was any known such case.

Then there are CAT and MRI scans. One can guarantee that if one has one that the radiologist will find something, often something totally independent of any symptom you may have and that something will result in more tests. Most of which eventually will result in nothing too serious, for after all we all age.

Now for personal genomics, and Bloomberg provides and interesting piece on the discovery of genetic defects which may possibly at some future time result possibly in some disease which may possibly be serious.

The author states:

Then my eyes were drawn back to the top of the report and a
variant called JAK2-V617F. I realized then that the list was
ranked in order of medical importance. Clicking on an entry
brought me to a few pages of medical information, and those
pages were linked to published scientific and medical studies. I
began reading about JAK2 more closely.

This wasn’t good. The report classified the JAK2 variant’s
clinical importance as “high,” and its impact as “well-
established pathogenic,” meaning harmful. It’s seen frequently
in people with rare “cancer-like” blood diseases. Indeed, as
the report said, doctors test for the JAK2 variant to confirm
cases of these diseases, called myeloproliferative disorders.

Well, what does this mean? Knowing this can one do something to mitigate the downside? What value is this knowledge? As one reads on it seems that there is nothing to do other than wait. So do we want to know this? Genetic diseases are often a small class of diseases and all too often we cannot do much. Take Marfan's syndrome, the enlargement of the aorta which often could rupture. On can diagnose it by looking at the patient, sunken chest, thin, long fingers etc. But so what, just watch, tell the patient, replace the aorta? How much, what cost, what risk?

The article raises a plethora of questions which it does not answer. It is more a personal journey into the hypochondria of disease awareness, which often is of little value.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

The Administration issued its budget for 2012 and following years. It is worth a look. First note above the explosion of anticipated income taxes from individuals. This can only be achieved if the Government increases taxes on a massive scale. All other elements rely on this drastic assumption. It is unrealistic but it necessary to justify the budget.

I have used 2000 as a baseline year. Why:

1. No wars
2. Stock Market up and down
3. Balanced Budget

I will provide six images which I fell tell a story.

First receipts and outlays. The outlays had jumped in 2009 with the new administration and then ramped up from there. Why? One reason was stimulus etc bu frankly that does not show as a large bump of almost a trillion so one wonders where it went. Second receipts dropped, unemployed and no taxes collected and then not even SSI taxes. But long term there is no attempt to correct expenditures. With little inflation one wonders why the increase, just SSI and Medicare, not really as we shall see.

This shows the same but with a per Pop, per person, ratio. Here we should not see the impact of a growing population, but we do. So why? Too much expenditures.

This is the same but as a % of GDP. Outlays were 25% of GDP! And they are not going below 22.5%! This is a problem.

This is receipts by type showing the major increase is by income taxes, and only and the middle and upper class.

This is SSI. Focus on On Budget numbers and we see they are growing as more people go back to work, hopefully. The on budget has no deficit. The off budget does!

Finally some select departments. HHS is the major grower due to Medicare, Medicaid and ACA! Remember ACA kicks in for 40 million more people! SSI continues to grow but no surprise there. Defense declines.

Why in God's name has Agriculture exploded! DHS is also high but Ag! What do they do...It has more than doubled, and it is not salaries.

One should ask, why should we increase any expenditures from a 2000 level, exclusive of the mild to zero inflation during this period. Second, we must handle Medicare and SSI, mainly through adjustments of eligibility age and increasing rates for Medicare as well as caps based on income. That is critical. SSI can and will take care of itself if and only if that is all it is used for. But there is a catch, the SSI stats were predicated on Fed interest rates well above 5%. Since the Fed drove those rates down the SSI fund will run short. This is but one example of how the Feds actions are harming the overall economy. One need go no further than these few charts to lay out a course for the future. If we do not then we face collapse.

The NY Times has a brief commentary on technically trained national leaders and it states:

China has even more scientists in key positions in the government.
President Hu Jintao was trained as a hydraulic engineer and Premier Wen
Jiabao as a geomechanical engineer. In fact, eight out of the nine top
government officials in China have scientific backgrounds.
There is a scattering of scientist-politicians in high government
positions in other countries as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel
has a doctorate in physical chemistry, and, going back a bit, Margaret
Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry.

The BBC ( also see BBC) also has an interesting piece on the putative next head of China:

Who is Xi Jinping? It's not an easy question to answer. The man the Communist Party is busy grooming to be China's next leader can be read in so many ways. He is a communist "princeling," the equivalent of royalty in
the Party, born into power and privilege but who then lived in a cave. He is a man who has spent his life in the Communist Party but who knows what it is like to be outcast. He has convinced businessmen he is their champion, while
overseeing a system where the state controls huge chunks of the economy. He has shown himself to be irritated with foreign criticism
of China but has sent his daughter to study at Harvard under a false
name to hide her identity. His wife, Peng Liyuan, a singer, has, for most of his career, been far more famous than he has. When he was first announced as China's next
leader-in-waiting, he was already vice-president, but people still
joked: "Who is Xi Jinping? He is Peng Liyuan's husband."

These combinations and contrasts will be interesting to watch especially in light of the chaos currently in Washington.The problem is that they come from two different worlds, and I do not mean China versus the US, I mean engineers and lawyers, two different planets. I doubt that anyone in the Administration could even interpret, mindsets and world views not languages.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Now I do not want to be too old a curmudgeon but I saw this MIT new admission "hack" where a balloon was sent with the admissions letter to some tremendous altitude, 91,000 feet. Admirable but I wonder what if this got sucked into an engine on a 737 or entangled in the prop of a single engine aircraft. Just a thought. Prior planning prevents poor performance.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Today the Administration in its Solomon like manner agreed to not force Catholic institutions to violate their religious beliefs but at the same time provide "free contraception" to those insured. Now the Government is not providing the free stuff, the Insurance carriers are. Let me see, can I get some of those free $50 from the printing house, I now use them instead of $20s, they buy the same at the gas pump and the grocery store.

Better yet, if you made a bad real estate decision the Government will give you free $20,000, well not directly, they made the bad banks do that, that is after they gave the bad banks billions.

Does anyone start to see a theme here somewhere.

There is no free lunch. Someone must pay, and that someone is those of us paying taxes. As I indicated before the current administration is spending $1,000 per month per person, up from $650 under the prior set of folks. And the new budget just gets worse! Any suggestions from out there?

POST NOTE: Again Greg Mankiw has keen insight into the obvious, a rare trait amongst many. As he states:

Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and
that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to
those who objected to policy A. The whole thing leaves me scratching my
head.

My conspiratorial mind says that the Administration orchestrated this whole mess to get what they wanted in the first place. Did the Insurance industry have a hand here. As usual one must ask if anything is really as it appears, or is Mankiw's head scratching a true sign that is was not stupidity but a strategy. Then again perhaps I spent too much time in Russia.

In reading the comments in the NY Times regarding the Administration accommodation to the HHS mandate, I am amazed by the near abject hatred on the part of those writing towards Catholics. I wonder if they ever read what they write. They make the Brits seem to be an accommodating and accepting group. We may all be safer with the Penal Laws, at least we knew where we stood.

This issue can be divided simply: (i) for the Individualists, the individual makes choices and Government should not mandate except when life and limb are at stake, ie murder, (ii) the Progressives, who firmly believe that there exists a select group to which they belong this group has been granted truth by some non-Kantian manner and that those not so endowed must obey them, since they lack the gift of truth. Fundamentally it is hubris, a group believes that they are correct and all must follow and the individual be damned.

This exercise was a brilliant move by the Administration, they feint to the left, then "accommodate" to the right, get what they want, and move on. A classic Russian chess move. But it has drawn out the vitriol of the left against Catholics. What group is next. Perhaps some of the left leaning bishops will see that they have been in error, so much for guitars in church!

The above chart is chilling. It plots Treasury Receipts, Expenditures and Deficit per person per month for the past seven years. Initially Receipts and Expenditures were close, not bad. Then things start to fall off the cliff. We now spend more than $1,000 per month per person for Federal services and collect just over $500. We used to spend and collect close to $650.

Now use a bit of logic. If we had a 5% unemployment and we went to 10% then we lost about 5% of the revenue stream. That is 5% of $650 or about $40. So where did the other $110 get lost? Maybe it is the 1%? I don't think so. So that is the first question.

Second, we are now spending $1,000 per person, up from $650. Where are we spending that. If we are paying unemployment, so be it but that is a relatively small amount per person, not enough to get there. Also we stopped collecting SSI, dumb but that would be in Receipts not expenditures.

So should we worry, I suspect so since no one seems to have discussed this and we have gotten sidetracked by the current slam on freedom and rights to choose, namely the birth control issue. That is just fodder added to the mess.

Just to collect more data we show below the new unemployment claims, raw and per Pop.

And per Pop:

We typically run at 0.1% but as of last month we are still at 1.3-1.4%. That is not as good as the Administration spins it to be.

But back to the first curve, it is essential to watch this one, it is the Table of Doom!

Thursday, February 9, 2012

The Penal Laws in England stated the following as regards to the Irish Catholics (See Duff, Six Days to Shake an Empire, 1966, pp 59-60):

No
Catholic permitted to vote in parliamentary, county, borough or corporation
elections.

No
Catholic permitted to stand for parliament, or for a county or borough or
corporation.

No
Catholic permitted to hold a commission in the army or navy, or a post in the
civil service.

No
Catholic permitted to be a member of a learned pro­fession,
except medicine, and in that only a chosen few.

No
Catholic permitted to open or administer a school.

No
Catholic permitted to teach.

No
Catholic permitted to carry a firearm without a licence, seldom granted.

No
Catholic permitted to own a horse worth more than £5.

No
Catholic in trade or industry permitted to have more than two apprentices
(except in the linen industry, which was to the Ascendancy's advantage).

No
Catholic permitted to manufacture or sell books or newspapers. (This included
all printing.)

No
Catholics permitted to marry a Protestant

No
Catholic estates permitted to be entailed.

No
Catholic permitted to take or grant mortgages.

No
Catholic permitted to take a lease for more than 31 years, and then at
two-thirds the annual value.

No Catholic priest permitted to enter the
country from abroad.

All Catholic archbishops and bishops must
leave Ireland under the penalties for high treason. One priest only permit­ted to each parish, however large.

All Catholics were made to pay special
taxes. All Catholic owners of land were subjected to special re­straints and disabilities.

All of any Catholic's estates must at
death be divided among all his children.

No Catholic priest
permitted to move one step outside his own parish.

We may have had of laws like this before, and perhaps again, even here in the US. And by the way, many of these are still on the books in England! Is the current HHS ruling the first new "Penal Law" for the US?

The current flap over the demand by the Federal Government that Catholic institutions provide birth control in direct violation of their beliefs has been framed in two ways. By the Individualists it is what right does the Government have to tell me what to do when it violates my faith. To the Progressives this is women's health.

Now women often spend hundreds if not thousands on makeup and skin creams, not yet covered by ACA but perhaps not far away, and likewise thousands on iPhones and other stuff but the law demands that all employers fund certain types of medication. On the other hand the law seems to be creeping along so that it will refuse PSA tests and prostate biopsies while funding birth control. Logic? Hardly.

But it does go to the heart of one's world view. To the Right it is the right to be left alone and make individual choices. To the Left it is that there is a central authority that deems what is best and we then all MUST follow it. Just read the comments in the NY Times and other outlets as to public views.

This is a true core issue, not the contraception issue, but who tells whom what to do and at whose costs. I had major problems with the current health care bill from the start. I imagined a morbidly obese GS 9 telling me what I can and cannot do, even with my own money. I was told the fear was unfounded. Yet we have a head of HHS doing just that to a Church, well "First they came for the Catholics .... and then they came for me, and there was no one left..."

One should remember that the current President was educated at Columbia University, a school which has had a long standing dislike, to say the least, of Catholics. I personally experienced that in 1960 when I was denied admission to Columbia expressly because I was Catholic, in writing, from a Dead! Thus perhaps we should not expect any different treatment from alumni. But as for the Individualists this is just another nail in the coffin of our freedoms, the creation of a country that De Tocqueville would hardly recognize.

The Progressives fundamentally believe that their truth is a universal truth, the only truth, and despite the belief of others they must all follow this humanly discovered truth. This, more than any other issue, is and must be the core of the discussion in the upcoming election. Do we have individual liberty and rights or is there some elite group whose ideas we all must follow, or else.

One is not forced to work at a Catholic Hospital, or University, and although I support universal health care, it is primarily for those tragic moments when survival is at the fore, not for runny noses, wrinkles, or even contraception. There must be a point when the individual makes a choice, and not the Government.

What of the employers who will fire someone who smokes, someone overweight, why are they free to do that. I agree they should but then why this flap over contraception. It is not cancer surgery, it is not testing for breast cancer, prostate cancer, it is in many ways akin to decongestants.

The problem is that we have empowered HHS and the hundreds of new agencies under ACA with powers we could never imagined. Remember, "you will see what is in the Bill after you pass it..." We are just beginning to see. The future looks terrifying.

POST NOTE: Just after posting this Greg Mankiw linked to a Cochrane Opinion in the WSJ which adds to the argument. Now Cochrane has a great economic argument but I further believe that the real issue is a battle of world views, Individualism versus Progressives, liberty versus Government control. When reading comments the Progressives write, they have a fervent religious belief, albeit ungodly, in the sole correctness of their conclusions and opinions. The Individualist says that anyone may hold any opinion, the Progressive demands that everyone comply with theirs. The issue is not what the Catholic Church says but that the Government believes that it is sine qua non, above all. The Progressive believes in a Government which has become a usurper of liberty. The question is; what world do you want your grandchildren to live in, unless of course you are consuming all those free contraceptives. In which case you may not really care.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

China Daily rep[orts on the completion of the agreements between China and Canada giving China access to most of Canada's oil reserves. They state:

Wen Jiabao on Wednesday urged the forging of a long-term, stable and diversified partnership with Canada in the energy and resource sector.

"The negotiation on China-Canada investment protection agreement has concluded. We hope to sign the important document as soon as possible to facilitate two-way investment," Wen told visiting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the Great Hall of the People.

Harper came to Beijing Tuesday for his second China visit since taking office in 2006.

Calling the two economies highly compatible, Wen proposed to draw up an all-round plan on boosting bilateral economic cooperation based on joint research on economic complementarities.

One wonders what the current Administration may think regarding their decisions to thwart the US relationship here. It will drive costs sky high while playing into the hands of a potential global competitor or possibly even worse.

Some tax lawyer wrote a piece in the NY Times today suggesting that the IRS get taxes from shares held at a then market valuation of some sort. He states:

This tax would not affect the middle class, or even most wealthy
Americans. Nor would it affect small-business owners. It would affect
only individuals who were undeniably, extraordinarily rich. Only
publicly traded stock would be marked to market.

Some would argue that it is inherently unfair to tax “paper gains”
before they are realized — Mr. Zuckerberg won’t receive $28 billion in
cash; he holds only paper. Moreover, markets are inherently volatile;
one year’s paper gains is another’s real losses. However, these
arguments are far less credible when paper losses give rise to real tax
refunds. Moreover, in a downturn, the mark-to-market tax would act as a
fiscal stimulus — the cash refunds would offset a declining stock
market.

This proposal follows the Ronald Reagan model by broadening the “base”
of tax without increasing rates. In fact, Reagan was responsible for the
last major reform of our antiquated realization system when he signed a
law requiring taxpayers to pay a tax on interest that accrued on bonds
but was not paid.

The most profound effect of a mark-to-market tax would be to level the
playing field between wage earners, on one hand, and founders and
investors on the other. Superwealthy holders of publicly traded
securities could no longer escape tax on their vast wealth.

Now leaving aside the sanity of this scheme one should examine the unintended consequences.

Let us assume I start a company. I put say $1 million of my money in it. It gets going. I need more money, and I get a first round of financing at a $9 million pre money valuation and raise say $9 million. My one million is now worth $9 million and I must pay 35% tax on this $8 million gain even though I never saw a penny and am still out $1 million.

So why would I start the business? And if I do a second round at say a $40 million pre money, my first round investor must pay tax on $11 million and of course so do I. Why would he want to invest, his rate of return is destroyed just then and there!

So what will happen, well we will find ways to do start ups in say Mauritania or some other place that does not have this strange way of taxing.

It seems clear to me that this fellow is clueless about the entrepreneur. The money was meant to grow the company, employ people, pay taxes, not give money to the Government. I guess it is now clear why we will be in this mess for a real long time.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

When I was quite young my grandmother handed me the above set of Dickens. She had been the head of the Socialist Party in New York and ran for Senate and NY State Treasurer. Never won. Yet I had to read Dickens so that understood the problems of the underclass. Now at the time I did not know that I was the underclass but by reading Dickens I was to see that there were those who were oppressed by the rich. Kind of the Occupy folks of today, but they are not really underclass.

Now I read all of these, and trying to see how they related to New York in the early 1950s was a bit of a stretch. You see Dickens understood the British class society, and we in the US, at least then, had a somewhat classless society. Or at least none of us saw any limitations on what we could achieve. For Dickens and the Brits class and your position in society defined your very existence. For me it made no sense. Thus book by book I read understanding that this world made no sense and even if it did as an American I could change it, I was not set in concrete. After many conversations even my grandmother was a believer.

I never made my grand children read this nonsense, yes nonsense. And today is Dickens' 200th anniversary of his birth. Perhaps for some he presents a world of meaning but for others he presents a planet on which we have no knowledge and we would never even want to understand it if we did. Thus unlike so many fans of the man, I felt he was the low point of my youth.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

The above shows the employment numbers from a telling perspective. The curve showing percent in base has declined again, allowing the decrease in the reported numbers. And this is WITH the seasonally adjusted numbers. Thus the number is truly less optimistic than what has been presented.

The above shows that using the base of employables before the collapse that we are still at 12% or higher in unemployed. The rate may be declining but not when adjusted for the base.

The above shows population and employed. Note the dip but also note that we are now barely keeping pace in rate of growth. This does not bode well. The numbers are "good" only because they have been adjusted; adjusted by seasonal number and adjusted by reducing the employable base.

About Me

Terry has spent most of his career in industry, half in corporate executive positions, and half involved in his start ups. He started on the Faculty and Staff at MIT in 1967 and was there until 1975, and he had returned to MIT from 2005 to 2012 to assist groups of doctoral and post doc students. Terry has focused on a broad set of industries from cable, to satellite, wireless, and even health care software and medical imaging. Terry has published extensively in a broad set of areas as well as having written several books. Terry's view is that of an entrepreneur who has built companies in over twenty countries.
Copyright 2008-2015 Terrence P McGarty all rights reserved.
NOTE: This blog contains personal opinions of the author and is not meant in any manner to provide professional advice, medical advice, financial advice. Reliance on any of the opinions contained herein is done at the risk of the user.

Subscribe To

Important Documents

Total Pageviews

Cookies EU

Notice: This site is written by me and operated by or under the aegis of Google via Blogspot and May Contain Cookies. This notice should suffice as a warning which may be required by EU regulations. Then again, it is the EU after-all and this may not reflect the regulated reality but at least you have been advised.

NOTICE

All documents and materials on this web site are the copyrighted property of Terrence P McGarty, the "Author", and can be used solely for individual purposes. The Author also does not represent in any manner or fashion that the documents and information contained herein can be used other than for expressing the opinions of the Author. Any use made and actions resulting directly or otherwise from any of the documents, information, strategies, or data or otherwise is the sole responsibility of the user and The Author expressly takes no liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use or reliance upon any of the Author's opinions as herein expressed. There is no representation by The Author, express or otherwise, that the materials contained herein are investment advice, business advice, legal advice, medical advice or in any way should be relied upon by anyone for any purpose. The Author does not provide any financial, investment, medical, legal or similar advice on this website or in its publications or related sites.